An excellent explanation; however, justice delayed is at best, society confused. This may now go to the appeal court, combined with new guidance and re-proscription, subject to further appeal. Meanwhile, the "supporting" protestors' arrests build unfortunate impression of the UK states position on Gaza, based on arbitary status of the legal appeals process. This seems to expose a weakness with both our legal process (by speed) and legislation (by disproportionality) that we seem unable to resolve in a timely fashion. This looks as if it will take longer than "Nuremberg" took to establish genocide and/or crimes against humanity and prosecute: a sad indictment and dangerous exemplar for the UK.
Thank you for another thoughtful and elegant analysis - but the present situation is bonkers. There has to be a way of ensuring that those that plot and commit serious crimes are prosecuted and punished without locking up elderly ladies for holding up hand written signs. We managed with the animal rights groups. Why has it now become so hard to be sensible?
I want to focus on two points that still confuse me.
First: the government argued that banning the group would give the police stronger powers, for example, it would make it a crime to invite support and would allow earlier disruption. But those are the automatic effects of banning any group. That’s what proscription always does. So if the rule is that not every group that technically meets the terrorism definition must be banned, how can “because banning gives us stronger tools” be the main reason for banning this one? That feels circular. You ban in order to get the powers that come from banning. Was that a simple misjudgment by the Home Office, or was it genuinely thought to be a proper reason?
Second: the court seized on that reasoning very tightly. It treated reliance on those built-in benefits as a fatal flaw. Was that because the Home Secretary leaned too heavily on them? Or did the court interpret the policy in an unusually rigid way that turned what might otherwise have been a supporting point into the decisive issue?
The public discussion then became circular in a different way. The government said: we need to ban them because banning lets us disrupt them. The court said: you can’t ban them just because banning lets you disrupt them. Around and around.
That leaves a more basic question: was this primarily a ministerial mistake, a judicial tightening of discretion, or something structurally awkward in the way the policy is written?
There is also a wider issue beyond the legal mechanics. The court accepted that some of the group’s actions amounted to terrorism. That was not disputed. Yet the public reaction treated the ruling as total vindication. “The ban was unlawful” became “the terrorism label was nonsense.” The nuance disappeared.
You’ve explained clearly why the ban was quashed. The harder question is why the court’s acknowledgment that terrorism occurred seems to carry almost no weight once the case leaves the courtroom.
Very good questions. The court might say the minister was badly advised. The minister might say the court was looking for a reason to lift the ban. Some members of the public will be interested only in who won. To be fair to the media, though, it was not an easy decision to summarise or report.
Being no legal eagle I was appalled that the Palestine Action Group’s action against their proscription as a terrorist organisation was upheld on the grounds of it being disproportionate. I am grateful Joshua for taking us through the labyrinthine reasons why but as a member of the public I am downright afraid if a group for whatever reason thinks it is ok to to take sledgehammers which injure law enforcement officers whilst they smash up up the properties of the people they hate and make no secret of intending to continue to do so ad infinitum seemingly now with impunity. I am relieved the Home Secretary is appealing the judgement but am bewildered that the word ‘terrorism’ and its meaning is so difficult to define legally.
An excellent explanation; however, justice delayed is at best, society confused. This may now go to the appeal court, combined with new guidance and re-proscription, subject to further appeal. Meanwhile, the "supporting" protestors' arrests build unfortunate impression of the UK states position on Gaza, based on arbitary status of the legal appeals process. This seems to expose a weakness with both our legal process (by speed) and legislation (by disproportionality) that we seem unable to resolve in a timely fashion. This looks as if it will take longer than "Nuremberg" took to establish genocide and/or crimes against humanity and prosecute: a sad indictment and dangerous exemplar for the UK.
Thank you for another thoughtful and elegant analysis - but the present situation is bonkers. There has to be a way of ensuring that those that plot and commit serious crimes are prosecuted and punished without locking up elderly ladies for holding up hand written signs. We managed with the animal rights groups. Why has it now become so hard to be sensible?
Thank you, that was very clear.
I want to focus on two points that still confuse me.
First: the government argued that banning the group would give the police stronger powers, for example, it would make it a crime to invite support and would allow earlier disruption. But those are the automatic effects of banning any group. That’s what proscription always does. So if the rule is that not every group that technically meets the terrorism definition must be banned, how can “because banning gives us stronger tools” be the main reason for banning this one? That feels circular. You ban in order to get the powers that come from banning. Was that a simple misjudgment by the Home Office, or was it genuinely thought to be a proper reason?
Second: the court seized on that reasoning very tightly. It treated reliance on those built-in benefits as a fatal flaw. Was that because the Home Secretary leaned too heavily on them? Or did the court interpret the policy in an unusually rigid way that turned what might otherwise have been a supporting point into the decisive issue?
The public discussion then became circular in a different way. The government said: we need to ban them because banning lets us disrupt them. The court said: you can’t ban them just because banning lets you disrupt them. Around and around.
That leaves a more basic question: was this primarily a ministerial mistake, a judicial tightening of discretion, or something structurally awkward in the way the policy is written?
There is also a wider issue beyond the legal mechanics. The court accepted that some of the group’s actions amounted to terrorism. That was not disputed. Yet the public reaction treated the ruling as total vindication. “The ban was unlawful” became “the terrorism label was nonsense.” The nuance disappeared.
You’ve explained clearly why the ban was quashed. The harder question is why the court’s acknowledgment that terrorism occurred seems to carry almost no weight once the case leaves the courtroom.
Very good questions. The court might say the minister was badly advised. The minister might say the court was looking for a reason to lift the ban. Some members of the public will be interested only in who won. To be fair to the media, though, it was not an easy decision to summarise or report.
It’s the ‘well-meaning folk’ where the problem lies. Arresting frail old people for holding up a piece of card doesn’t look good.
Something needs to be done to enlighten the public about PA’s agenda. But who will do that? Government and politicians have lost popular trust.
I don’t know the answer!
Being no legal eagle I was appalled that the Palestine Action Group’s action against their proscription as a terrorist organisation was upheld on the grounds of it being disproportionate. I am grateful Joshua for taking us through the labyrinthine reasons why but as a member of the public I am downright afraid if a group for whatever reason thinks it is ok to to take sledgehammers which injure law enforcement officers whilst they smash up up the properties of the people they hate and make no secret of intending to continue to do so ad infinitum seemingly now with impunity. I am relieved the Home Secretary is appealing the judgement but am bewildered that the word ‘terrorism’ and its meaning is so difficult to define legally.
Thank you Joshua, this is admirably clear.
David Allan Green has made a number of interesting comments on the judgment on his 'Empty City' blog: https://emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-palestine-action-judgment
Yes, saw that, thanks. He makes some good points, as you say.